Why We Resist Those Who Resist Change
Why Hawks Win is a fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Policy (Jan/Feb 2007). Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon suggest that leaders get all types of advice when there is tension and conflict, but that they have a natural bias toward listening only to those who give them “hawkish†advice over those who offer more “dovish†solutions.
People are prone to exaggerate their strengths (After all, 80 percent of us rate our driving skills above average). This makes us susceptible to people who give us information that bolsters our optimistic view of how well we will do during a conflict.
The authors looked at studies of bias (predictable errors) over the past 40 years. All of the studies showed that people favor the advice of hawks over doves. For example, we tend to over-exaggerate the bad intentions of our adversaries. Be overly sanguine when trouble starts. Are reluctant to make concessions. The authors conclude that these psychological biases increase the odds that conflict will start and that it will be harder to end.
So what does this have to do with managing change in organizations? A lot.
When people resist us there is a natural human reaction to think that they are wrong — and that we can beat them. Our biases cause us to make wrong estimates about how serious this resistance is or how powerful the potential opposition is. In fact, we would rather keep in the game – roll the dice – even when the odds are against us, than take a lesser more-certain win.
When you couple these biases with a strong tendency for us to listen to people who reinforce how strong we are, how right we are, how evil or wrong the other side is, and dismiss the ideas of those who suggest that we should concede anything, you put major new initiatives at severe risk.
The cost of giving into these natural biases can be huge – massive projects fail, protracted strikes breakout, and so on.
There are no easy answers. But I do know that people who have the discipline to step back and look at situations through the eyes of others and look at the situation from various angles – and not just the knee-jerk first reaction – do better. I welcome your comments on what works.
Rick  Â
www.beyondresistance.com
Â
Â
January 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am
There is no easy road to anything. Change is going to happen with or without conflict. I agree with this article, and it is good advice to see all sides of the situation. I have also found that when doing this, you can ‘win’ over both sides, which makes the change easier in the end. However, nothing happens magically overnight, it does take some time.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I agree that there are no easy answers. But, when dealing with change, I have found that the chaos theories help a little bit better than what we may expect. One particular point on dealing with chaos is that we should look for some sort of forms so we can define some actions to control the situation base on those forms that we are identifying; always looking at the direction that the change is pointing.
It is natural for people to stay where they fill comfortable and not to try something new. This is, in fact, one of the reasons for the resistance that managers find when dealing with change and of course people reaction to the word “change†makes things worst.
However, one very important step when dealing with resistance is your position toward the change. If people fill that your position is not a solid one, the resistance will take place instead of the acceptance. When you present a solid position, people tend to “relax†their positions a little bit to try that new idea and this is the moment for you to direct the way into the change.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
It is not an easy job trying to convince people to accept changes. People will see “what is in it for them”.Hence, we should have the ability to make them understand the benefits of change to themselves if they accept instead of resist the change.
One of the way to get them listening (first) to the proposed changes is by involving the top management’s commitment. The “selling” of required changes has to come from the top management otherwise it is worthless to push through the change.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am
For me, the author’s reference to the necessity of being aware of “subtle openings for dialogue” is key to surmounting our tendency to reach for the club first.
‘More of the same’ (reaching for the club) oddly continues to be a favorite / first approach in most situations that I experience regardless of after-action reviews / post-mortems.
Excellent article. Thanks Rick.
The ‘Want To Know More’ link is worth a look. In the interest of saving time, here is the content.
Why Hawks Win Want to Know More?
For an introduction to the study of biases in decision making, consult Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001), by Reid Hastie and Robyn M. Dawes, and Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 6th ed, (Hoboken: Wiley, 2006), by Max Bazerman.
For a more technical treatment, see Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), edited by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, a rich collection of current research on psychological biases.
More than 30 years after its publication, Robert Jervis’s Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976) remains an important summary of the implications of psychology for global affairs. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek tries his hand at analyzing the psychology behind the Iraq war in “Iraq’s False Promises†(FOREIGN POLICY, January/February 2004).
January 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Currently, one can only negotiate peace unless you have the hawkish leverage. Perhaps, it’s a matter of maturity across cultures. Success and power are inextricably tied together, today. Says something for benevolent dictators. I do not advocate dictators but look forward to greater maturity in our negotiations processes where dovish solutions are given weight in long term decisions.